I'd be impressed, if warrants were harder to come by. Civil subpoenas are even easier; a judge doesn't even have to review them, the attorney asking for the documents has the authority to demand them, unless you can prove your emails are completely covered by a legal privilege.

So Google won't hand over e-mails I've written that are to law enforcement agencies....does that mean they will hand over e-mails I'm sending to other people? And why would law enforcement want e-mails I've sent them since they're on the distribution? Are they trying to force Google to deliver the mail properly?

Didnt Obama run on a platform of stopping this nonsense? Isnt the DoJ controlled by the executive branch?

1 + 1 = 2

I don't remember Obama ever mentioning Google, Gmail or law enforcement's ability to make warranted requests. Plus, I probably take a more global view of things; your President doesn't have a say on e.g. Danish police work, or Google's behavior in India, Turkey or France.Not everything is about the US. Not for me, anyway. So that's why your comment seemed to me to come out of left field.

slayer199:So Google won't hand over e-mails I've written that are to law enforcement agencies....does that mean they will hand over e-mails I'm sending to other people? And why would law enforcement want e-mails I've sent them since they're on the distribution? Are they trying to force Google to deliver the mail properly?

You've misread the TFA's headline. When it says "won't turn over emails to law enforcement without a warrant" it doesn't mean "emails sent to law enforcement", it means your emails won't be handed over to law enforcement without a warrant.Reading the actual article makes this clear. It's not too long to read.

Didnt Obama run on a platform of stopping this nonsense? Isnt the DoJ controlled by the executive branch?

1 + 1 = 2

I don't remember Obama ever mentioning Google, Gmail or law enforcement's ability to make warranted requests. Plus, I probably take a more global view of things; your President doesn't have a say on e.g. Danish police work, or Google's behavior in India, Turkey or France.Not everything is about the US. Not for me, anyway. So that's why your comment seemed to me to come out of left field.

Didnt Obama run on a platform of stopping this nonsense? Isnt the DoJ controlled by the executive branch?

1 + 1 = 2

I don't remember Obama ever mentioning Google, Gmail or law enforcement's ability to make warranted requests. Plus, I probably take a more global view of things; your President doesn't have a say on e.g. Danish police work, or Google's behavior in India, Turkey or France.Not everything is about the US. Not for me, anyway. So that's why your comment seemed to me to come out of left field.

What about Warrantless Wiretapping and repeal of the Patriot Act?

Linkie. He really isn't doing so hot on Civil Rights issues.

Warrantless wiretapping and Patriot Act in particular though, wasn't a compromise, we still have the damn Patriot Act, as he signed an extension.

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this story; it's about warranted requests. And again, I'm less focused on the US law enforcement practices side of the story, and more on Google's stand. Hence my misunderstanding of cman's comment.I'll let you get on with your Obama bashing now.

Dansker:Quantumbunny: Dansker: cman: Dansker: cman: Change we can believe in

I nominate this for Non Sequitur of the Day....but the day is young.

Didnt Obama run on a platform of stopping this nonsense? Isnt the DoJ controlled by the executive branch?

1 + 1 = 2

I don't remember Obama ever mentioning Google, Gmail or law enforcement's ability to make warranted requests. Plus, I probably take a more global view of things; your President doesn't have a say on e.g. Danish police work, or Google's behavior in India, Turkey or France.Not everything is about the US. Not for me, anyway. So that's why your comment seemed to me to come out of left field.

What about Warrantless Wiretapping and repeal of the Patriot Act?

Linkie. He really isn't doing so hot on Civil Rights issues.

Warrantless wiretapping and Patriot Act in particular though, wasn't a compromise, we still have the damn Patriot Act, as he signed an extension.

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this story; it's about warranted requests. And again, I'm less focused on the US law enforcement practices side of the story, and more on Google's stand. Hence my misunderstanding of cman's comment.I'll let you get on with your Obama bashing now.

A, I'm not bashing not bashing Obama, I'm explaining cman's comment.B, I'm not sure how Google requiring warrants for e-mail access (e-mail being a communication medium going over wires... the internet, which is not a series of trucks) is unrelated to WIREtapping without warrants. It sounds fairly relevant. The only difference is Google is saying no, we won't do your wiretap for you, unlike the phone companies.

B, I'm not sure how Google requiring warrants for e-mail access (e-mail being a communication medium going over wires... the internet, which is not a series of trucks) is unrelated to WIREtapping without warrants. It sounds fairly relevant.

One is warranted, the other warrantless. Seems like two different issues to me.

The only difference is Google is saying no, we won't do your wiretap for you, unlike the phone companies.

Which is nice. And not terribly interesting to me; Danish law enforcement is not allowed warrantless wiretapping.Damn, this thread is like quicksand. I'm going to pull myself out before I get stuck.

B, I'm not sure how Google requiring warrants for e-mail access (e-mail being a communication medium going over wires... the internet, which is not a series of trucks) is unrelated to WIREtapping without warrants. It sounds fairly relevant.

One is warranted, the other warrantless. Seems like two different issues to me.

The only difference is Google is saying no, we won't do your wiretap for you, unlike the phone companies.

Which is nice. And not terribly interesting to me; Danish law enforcement is not allowed warrantless wiretapping.Damn, this thread is like quicksand. I'm going to pull myself out before I get stuck.

I made the mistake of assuming you were American, hence my sharp remark in such fashion. I apologize for that.

Dansker:slayer199: So Google won't hand over e-mails I've written that are to law enforcement agencies....does that mean they will hand over e-mails I'm sending to other people? And why would law enforcement want e-mails I've sent them since they're on the distribution? Are they trying to force Google to deliver the mail properly?

You've misread the TFA's headline. When it says "won't turn over emails to law enforcement without a warrant" it doesn't mean "emails sent to law enforcement", it means your emails won't be handed over to law enforcement without a warrant.Reading the actual article makes this clear. It's not too long to read.

Dansker:You've misread the TFA's headline. When it says "won't turn over emails to law enforcement without a warrant" it doesn't mean "emails sent to law enforcement", it means your emails won't be handed over to law enforcement without a warrant.Reading the actual article makes this clear. It's not too long to read.

Now the Feds have to kill forests and load one of these machines with some friendly judge's signature.

Ever get a bit of snail spam that had a hand addressed envelope?

Linky

Those 'hand written' envelopes are printed script 99% of the time, not autopen. Look at them, you can see the bloody pixels on the things most of the times, printers don't have 'bad penmenship' resolution.

HotWingAgenda:I'd be impressed, if warrants were harder to come by. Civil subpoenas are even easier; a judge doesn't even have to review them, the attorney asking for the documents has the authority to demand them, unless you can prove your emails are completely covered by a legal privilege.

THIS. I despise the way that we as a society have become placated by the word "warrant". A warrant is nothing more than a legal document that states that the law enforcement office said, "please." Not even "pretty please with sugar on top" just plain ordinary "please". It is an astounding turn of events when a judge turns down a warrant because the legal standard for getting a warrant is so low as to be meaningless in practice.

Part of the problem is the law but the bigger problem is with judges who equate probable cause with whimsy.